Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Many dairymen use “sexed” semen to insure an
adequate replacement supply given fast cow turnover rates in their herds.“Cow turnover” gets blamed on lots of
things, but—

And common sense will tell you this is true—the
biggest fault may be our random use of aggressive genetic selection at least
without proper compensatory mating to balance it.

If you are using sexed semen, we sell the ST
Genetics program, which is owned by the company that controls the
patent on the sexing process.The
benefit of their years of research in perfecting the sexing process and semen
recovery is available in their sires.

If you would prefer not to use sexed semen, but wish
to insure adequate replacements, consider utilizing the “aAa” breeding
guide as your mating program—the herds with the most longevity at competitive
production levels tend to be “aAa” users, and usually have a surplus of heifers
from normal reproduction.

Saturday, May 27, 2017

USDA performed extensive crossbreeding
trials among Holstein, Guernsey, Jersey, and Red Danes at the Beltsville
Experimental Farms in the 1940s and 1950s, concurrent with the beginning of
AI.After all crossbreds were compared
to contemporary purebreds (which also included some inbreeding trials), the
experiment was concluded with two conclusions “Nothing crossbred or
purebred will milk more than a straight bred Holstein” and “Avoid
inbreeding”.

Thus while ABS in its early days had
advocated crossbreeding, all other studs jumped on the “purebred” bandwagon and
dairy crossbreeding died out.If
anything, “crossbreed upgrading” became the norm for those who bred colored
cows to Holstein sires once the 1960s ushered in the “Class” based Federal Milk
Orders, and added bottling premiums to what had been a butterfat based milk
pricing system.

Holsteins peaked at 96% of the USA and
Canadian cow populations, and many “experts” predicted the demise of all other
dairy breeds.At the same time, in the
1970s, the concept of “index ranking” took charge of the genetic evaluation
systems, and each breed association eventually fell in line, accepting a “sire
stack” contemporary comparison genetic theory, over purebred concepts of
“maternal cow lines” and intergenerational phenotypic comparisons.The culmination of these changes was“linear trait” type appraisal replacing
traditional breeder-designed type grading standards.

Indexing accelerated milk production
at younger ages.Linear selection made
dairy cows highly angular (which is genetically linked to early production
maturity) -- the milk check was the only selection value.

Multiple Component Pricing arrived in
the north half of the USA in the 1980s, with protein taking its place alongside
butterfat as the driving forces behind changing consumer demands, and colored
cows started a comeback that continues today (rebuilding gene pools later
tapped for crossbreeding).

By the 1990s, it was clear that many
dairy farms were in trouble both operationally and financially, and those who
study economic trends eventually looked at the dairy cows themselves.The higher yield AI cows had become “high
maintenance” cows as well, and the capital costs of remodeling dairy facilities
to provide the “model” environment dictated by “ideal” genetics became too high
to generate a positive rate of return on investment (even as the milk check
cashflows continued to grow).

Enter crossbreeding.Alternative farm designs, such as intensive
grazing, higher forage rations, less external inputs, less elaborate barn
designs, group handling, all brought the highly specialized Holsteincow into question.Industry logic was “we have been using the
best bulls” [note: “best” as defined by prior assumptions] thus
“the fault must be in pure breeding—we now must crossbreed to regain vigor,
health and fertility”.Overlooked was
the continued success of “aAa” herds using the same sire pool.

What has been consistent in
selection of “cross” breeds?Every breed (starting with Jerseys, thenBrown Swiss, then Swedish Red, then NZ
Friesian, then Montbeliarde, then Norwegian Red, and now Fleckveih) that has
had a major part in crossbreedingadded
“round” qualities on some physical level to the razor-back “sharp”
Holsteins.On a summary level, it
was that simple.The experts advocating
crossbreeding spoke lots of pseudo-science to justify it (“heterosis response”)
(“too much inbreeding”) (“higher health trait gene base breeds”) – but it turns
out, the old concept of the “dual purpose” breed cow’s physique was just
healthier and more reproductive than the “modern” cow.

“Round” and “Sharp”
are the most basic of “aAa” mating concepts.Could it all be that simple??

All I know is, both purebred and
crossbred herds using “aAa” are happier about their cows.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

AI began as a service in the 1940s, and with the advent
of frozen semen in the 1960s, transitioned into genetic merchandising since the
1970s.Today’s approaches to the “art”
and “science” of breeding are really no different than the ideas competing in
the transformative 1960s—we just assign new names to make then seem
revolutionary.

In fact, most of our current breeding ideas are either
evolutionary or just reinventing a tired idea that tried and failed a couple
generations before.Understanding
history is a step in being able to sort “fads and fancies” from foundational
concepts.But perhaps the most
overlooked aspect of modern breeding, in our reductionist science approaches,
remains our need to build the physical cow capable of sustaining the
production pace for which we focus so much genetic selection energy.

If you suspect you are missing out on all the genetic
gains you have been promised, it may be time to have a conversation with us,
and fit all the pieces together.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

In 1949, after ten years of breeding purebred cattle in
five dairy and two beef breeds, the CURTiSS Candy Company Farms introduced
their “Improved Stud Service”.(The
late Charles Palen joined this organization in 1952.)By 1965, they represented over half the
total growth of the entire AI industry, and were breeding over a million
cows annually.

The CURTiSS program joined
ABS as the only “private enterprise” studs, all others being regional and state
cooperatives often organized by University dairy extension.ABS advertised “Every Sire Proved Great”
on the basis of [mostly single herd] daughter vs dam evaluations for
production, and at that time generally ignored type or pedigree.CURTiSS focused on “Cow Families” and
promoted “balance” of production and type as the “Complete Cow”.Both ABS and most of the State
Cooperatives ridiculed CURTiSS as selling mostly young sires (the sons of their
most prominent breeding cows and herd sires).

They also ridiculed
planned mating (basic “pool” service was $7, but a “select” mating was $25,
where the dairyman pre-arranged to have the bull of his choice available for
his best cow) claiming that every bull in their programs was equally as good as
any other, just take what the inseminator had that day and be satisfied.

How CURTiSS and “the Complete Cow” concept changed
the industry

CURTiSS was the first AI stud
to have all its sires analyzed by the equally new Weeks’ Analysis (“aAa”
Breeding Guide) and to promote it to its customers as the way to make the best
use of well-bred AI sires.

Even after the CURTiSS
Candy Farms’ breeding herds were sold in 1954, the program grew by sourcing
bulls from prominent breeders (eg, Gray View, Skokie, Paclamar, Walkway,
Arlinda) who used “aAa”.

The “Complete Cow” concept
could be summarized this way:

(1)Select from bulls where deep pedigree maternal line
cows are mated to complementary sires.

(2)Use those bulls in your herd according to their best
application under “aAa” or self-taught mating.

(3)No matter how promising as young sires, CURTiSS only
kept as “proven” sires those whose type and production evaluations indicated
usefulness in some key area of selection.

(4)Breed ¾ of the herd to progeny “proven” sires, breed ¼
of the herd to the next young sires.

Sound familiar
today?The only difference between
CURTiSS and the most modern of AI systems today is in terminology[AI
stud “MOET” herds producing bulls][Genomic young sires for open sampling] –

But the one key difference
is CURTiSS never bought into “index ranking” of sires, as the only measure of
genetic “value”--broad experience
taught CURTiSS guys there is no “perfect” bull.

How CURTiSS proved that traditional breeding and
science work better together

The two Holstein bulls
that did more to establish momentum for CURTiSS in their early, fresh semen
days (prior to 1960) were Curtiss Candy Invincible (born 1949)
and Pabst Sir Roburke Rag Apple (born 1947).Invincible was a CURTiSS
Farms young sire first available late in 1950, while Roburke
(sold as a calf from Pabst-Knutson Farm unit to Mooseheart Farms) was sold to
CURTiSS in 1953 after being proven.The “magic cross” proved to be using one of these sires on the daughters
of the other, and by the late 1950s into the early 1960s, these two dominated
Holstein USA’s “Honor List” and were recognized as the leading sire of 100,000
pound cows (Roburke) and 200,000 pound cows (Invincible).

The components of selection and mating that made
this successful

Roburke was a leading production sire of his era, +870m+.02%+29f , and earned a Gold Medal for also siring improved type +1.05.“aAa” called him SRS – today he would be
3-1-5 (Open + Dairy + Smooth) which basically means dairy capacity and
refinement of bone with width of body.Weight at maturity was 2400 pounds, scored
“Excellent”, most other AI studs sought his sons for their programs.

Invincible was a successful showring yearling and ended up +89m
+.05% +6f with basically breakeven type ratings +0.05.“aAa” called him RSR – today he would be
2-4-6 (Tall + Strong + Style) which basically means upstanding and growthy
with full chest, good bone and easy mobility.Weight 3000 pounds at maturity, the longest
bodied bull of his time, scored “Excellent” all his life.

Both bulls were the result
of judicious linebreeding, but each from a different bloodline
than the other.

Roburke was a double grandson of Wisconsin Admiral Burke
Lad who founded the “Burke” bloodline in Holsteins that was noted for
moderate size, early maturing cows with modern shapely udders.Today we have “Burke” influence through
descendants of Elevation and Bell.

Invincible had three close crosses to Dunloggin Woodmaster
and his dam and two grandams were the three most influential cows CURTiSS
bought at the Dunloggin dispersal in 1942.“Dunloggin” cows were rarely fancy in the udder (but good udder texture)
butwere the lifetime champions of their
era.

Thus--when dairymen bred Roburkes to Invincible or
Invincibles to Roburke, they were making an “outcross” hybrid vigor mating
between two unrelated but individually linebred sires.They were also making a “balanced” mating
according to “aAa” concepts of physical compensation and adaptability.On the genetic selection level, you had a
competitive young age production sire crossed against a size and maturity
production sire.The result:
(1st) competitive production at any age, with (2nd) added
ability to remain competitive into old age.

Can we do this today?

We have much confusion
today over the difference between “linebreeding” and “inbreeding” and what must
be done to avoid “inbreeding depression”.What the above teaches us is, first, a linebred bull can be an
asset to breeding; also, it teaches us that outcross combinations
of linebred bulls produce our best performing animals which the
histories of Round Oak Rag Apple Elevation (inbred Burke sirexlinebred Rag Apple dam) and his grandsires Wis Burke Ideal
(linebred Burke x Admiral outcross) and Osborndale Ivanhoe (linebred Rag
Apple x inbred Ormsby) should have informed us as well.

Use of the “aAa” Breeding
Guide (following Weeks’ Analysis of your cows) prevents inbreeding effects
as a result of guiding you away from matings involving similar genotypes.At the same time it focuses on the
qualities of the physical cow that in combination maximize production while
optimizing health.

Perhaps the best example
of a modern day linebred bull is the late Picston Shottle (EX) who is a double grandson of Hanoverhill
Starbuck who was linebred to Wis Burke Ideal and Osborndale Ivanhoe.The other influences in “Shottle” were breed
outcrosses, for example multiple crosses to Roybrook Telstar.His ability to produce hybrid vigor in the
modern population is reflected by his long life—16 years.

You do not need “index” in every
generation to produce good cows—just good bulls for their purpose

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Greek style yogurt (thicker and creamier than
conventional yogurt) now represents 20% of the total yogurt sales in the USA,
in spite of its premium price—mostly because it has twice the milk protein of
regular (straight from the milk vat) yogurt.

Whey proteins are being added to a plethora of milk-based
drinks for extra nutrients and energy for the time and weight conscious.This is the “new” dairy growth sector.

All this suggests that at least for “multiple component
pricing” milk markets, the protein content of the milk you sell will have an
increasing impact on your income.

Protein (of the Kappa casein variety) is of course the
major component of all the cheese you now see more prominently displayed in
deli cases and specialty food stores.

Protein (of the Beta casein variety) now has a growing
role in genetic selection, first in the awareness of the “A2” variant as
superior to all other bovine variants for those who have family histories in
autoimmune diseases (autism, childhood onset diabetes, etc).

There is much momentum among organic markets to provide
an “all A2” milk supply.Activist
consumers have indicated a willingness to pay a premium for assured A2 milk and
medical practicioners are becoming aware of how “all milk is NOT the same”.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Many breeders who are pursuing high Genomic rank
matings for AI and embryo markets are starting to question the type and
physical proportions of many resulting heifers.The phenotype of heifers (and their full
brothers who often go into AI) seems to be like this:

Around
one third are too coarse (bully in front, narrow in rear) to milk well.

Another third are too frail (narrow throughout, very fine boned) to
compete.

That
leaves roughly one third that still look like a functional “dairy type” animal.

(Yet
we are assigning 50% Rel in Brown Swiss, 60% Rel in Jerseys, 70% Rel in
Holsteins to these calves)

In the beginnings of scientific
(mathematical) genetic evaluation, we compared a bull’s daughters to their
dams, to see if the bull could improve on his mates.The comparisons were made both for type and
for production.This approach resulted
in development of “mature equivalent” (ME) factors to recognize that a
young cow (first lactation bull daughter) was too immature to compete directly
with a matured cow (third or later lactationdam).

This was known as “intergenerational
comparison”—what changed from one generation to the next?

We still use intergenerational
concepts in qualitative analysis (aAa or DMS), to predict results from
possible mating choices.

But geneticists from early on
preferred to seek the genotype (genetic potential) over the phenotype
(realized result) believing that the phenotype was “too influenced by
environment”.Their first step was to
convert sire evaluation to “daughters versus herdmates”, still using ME
factors, and they called that result a “Predicted Difference” (PD).This is “intragenerational”
comparison—looking at all cows in the same generation, which logically led to
the concept of “parity” (only compare daughters of our bull against other cows
born the same season of the same year).

The next step was the inclusion of the
averages of the ancestors—first by “Pedigree Index” (1/2 sire PD plus ¼
maternal grandsire PD) which was assigned to both daughters and their
contemporaries, so any deviations could be put in a “genetic” [pedigree rank]
relevance.By the time the “Animal Model” is
inaugurated (pulling in Parent Averages for all animal pedigree relationships)
we called the result the “Predicted Transmitting Ability” (PTA)[actual deviation was only part of the
total weighted data].

The industry was quite aggressive in
promoting these indexes, which led to the composite ranking index ($Net
Merit, TPI, JPI in the USA, LPI in Canada, BW in New Zealand,
RWZ in Germany, etc).All
these indexes were designed to promote that nation’s genetics into any export
market they could reach.

Now we have Genomics which
looks at the DNA, but condenses the genotype to 64,000 “marker genes” that were
possessed in common by animals who ranked for any measured trait in the
historical reference list for each breed. Now all we need to have a “ranking” animal
currently is to find 7% or more of the markers in the DNA of your calf plus
the pedigree ancestors to reinforce the assumptions (60% DNA vs 40% pedigree)
to impute a high index.We no longer
“need” any progeny to get an elite ranking.

This might explain why there is so
much physical variation in the individual high-ranked bull or heifer.

You do not need a “complete” or
physically “balanced” physique to have the right “marker genes” to produce a
high Genomic ranking value.This is
reductionist theory taken to its most extreme point.

How to still breed good cows for your environment

Not all Genomic sires are “the same”.Some still actually have dams with scores
and completed lactations.Some
actually have multi generation maternal performance to give us confidence
beyond the mathematical assumptions.

And—as large expansion herdsmen are learning, type
is still important.Cows with a
defective physique still leave herds faster than cows who have good physical
adaptation to the environment.The only
issue with “type” is the basis on which you plan matings.

This heifer matured into a cow who made a lifetime
yield three times that of the average commercial dairy cow (which at last
count calves twice and milks less than 30 months).

She has the sharp shoulder and wide chest of the
“sturdy” dairy cow, the deep and well sprung rib of the “ruminant capacity”
dairy cow, the even proportioned udder with teat positioned central to each
quarter on an udder with a level floor, and a rear leg position that fully
supports her rear end weight, with springy joints, standing on substantial feet
requiring minimal hoof trimming.If you
could add some more open space between her pins, she could have a more roomy
rear udder (and likely calve easier) but this is a cow that will fit easily
into any free stall space.

Mating should be on the physical, rather than a
theoretical genetic, level if you wish to make cows like this one consistently.Too many cows today are narrow, clumsy in
their tallness, not able to maintain body condition, slow to breed, hard to
calve.Again, bulls do not need
“balanced” physiques to receive a high genetic ranking.The list of traits which add up to a high
index is a short list that mostly ignores the physique.

This is why we continue to bug you about considering
the “aAa” method for planning matings that produce physiques capable of
actually harvesting all that theoretical value the indexes promise (but are
only able to deliver about one third of the time).

Somecurrentfavoritesfromnewersires:

Two high production sires (progeny verified) who can
safely calve your heifers:

99HO7070Jehosaphat(aAa 342156)151HO 569Pavethe way(aAa 534126)

Use him on the smaller framed
heifersUse him on the
taller, narrower heifers

It is highly unusual to find sires
(as these two are) who are still “plus” DPR above +1000m PTA

“Planet” son from a “Shottle” dam“Planet” son from a “O Man” dam

Used within an aAa-directed mating plan, you can harvest
the above genetic potential while also having a properly balanced cow physique
that is capable of a full productive life without high maintenance cost.

Balancing the mating realizes
more successful heifers than agonizing over linear profiles.If you are afraid to use any bull without a
“perfect” linear, you will end up producing tall, narrow, shallow cows—what
linear classification techniques favor.Think about that before you pass up any bull who has the production
and daughter fertility and calving ease and developed maternal line gene
support you need to change the “high maintenance” cow experiences you may have
been getting.

Mich Livestock Service, Inc“For the
Best in Bulls”ph (800) 359-1693www.michiganlivestock.com

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Next to Holsteins, the Fleckveih
breed of cattle (primarily from Germany, Austria and Alpine regions of
Switzerland and Italy) is the second largest population of dairy cattle
in Europe.Of all the red
breeds in Europe, they are the most widely disseminated around the world, and
has the larger AI sire development program (with more AI stud participants)
than any other breed that has been introduced to the USA from Europe as a
choice for a crossbreeding rotation.

Fleckveih was ignored in US
crossbreeding mostly because the source studs in Europe were competitors of,
rather than partners with, the major US studs exporting Holstein and Brown
Swiss semen to Europe.

World Wide Sires brought Skandinavian Reds to the US in
trade for Holstein and Jersey semen wanted from the US, for example.Today each major system has a chosen breed
they offer crossbreeders (as with ABS and the Norwegian Red sires from
Geno).Fleckveih had no one to
partner with except the few individuals (like Dr John Popp of Alberta) who had
done comparisons and found the Fleckveih was adaptable to North America just as
it has been adaptable across Latin and South America.

Fleckveih in some circles are confused
with “beef” cattle, due to their historical descent from the Swiss Simmental,
the first of the large frame continental breeds American AI studs imported in
the ‘60s to meet demands for growth rate and frame among beef cattlemen.The Simmental was true dual purpose breed
selection, compared to the pure beefCharolais,
Gelbveih, Limousin, Maine Anjou, Chianina.

(1)They
fed them on grass alone during the grazing season, in the foothills of
the Alps

(2)They
milked them once per day after bringing them down out of the pastures

(3)They
still nursed their calf until weaning when in the barn in the evening

Fresh milk cheeses made from Simmental
cows’ milk (like Camenbeart and Emmental) earned market premiums
for Swiss cattlemen, and the management routine followed (1)(2)(3) above) also
gave them a 700+ pound weaned feeder animal to sell at the end of the grazing
season (on top of 10,000 pounds of 4% milk used for cheese).The Simmental had fertility to breed back
annually and stay in this spring grass calving seasonal window.They are typically a sturdy 55 inches tall
but might weigh 1500 lbs.

In Austria and Germany Fleckveih sire
programs test several hundred bulls annually for both “rate of gain” and for
“dairy production” (a goal of 100 daughters milk tested from each sire sampled)
so the needs of both “dual purpose” cattlemen and specialized dairymen can be
fulfilled.Pedigrees show 24 active
breeding lines (how does that compare to what we see in American breed
selections?) are used.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

We have to remind ourselves constantly
in the business of breeding that “genetic” means “population” NOT biological function or relative transmitting
ability or even realized performance.Genetics only measures the “current” measured generation, it does not
compare the “new” against the “old” on either an individual animal basis or a
philosophy of selection basis.

What do I mean?Geneticists cannot tell you if “Mogul”
today is superior to “Elevation” in his day.You actually need a supply of Elevation semen to use at the same time on
the same mates as Mogul to answer that question.They prefer to assume that, because
today’s herd averages are higher than in the 1970s, at least for yield
traits, Mogul must be superior to Elevation.

And as much as “breeders” will
generally object to the idea that these newer, genomically identified
“supersires” are “genetically” better (Genomic definition: possess a higher
percentage of the desired “marker”genes associated with measured traits)
–geneticists, not breeders,
control the agenda of selection for future AI sires, and are not concerned
with prior industry definitions of “greatness”.

Thus, a sire like Rosafe
Citation R *RC whose entire list of classified daughters averages an
actual 84.0 points, but virtually all scored between 1962 and 1990, can be
imputed as “minus” for type against the current type “headliners” whose actual
score average may be less than 80.0 points.The physical type considered superior in that era, while having
transmitting influence behind today’s cattle, is different in many traits and
can produce a different resulting score under current linear assumptions.

Likewise, while a higher percentage of
tested “Citation R” daughters exceeded 100,000# and 200,000# lifetime
production (before rBST or TMR) than any leading sire of the modern era, their
annual lactation averages followed the classical pattern to maturity, doing their
best efforts at ages cows no longer reach.

The relevant question is not being asked

What is the goal of your
breeding program?If it is
simply to have the highest indexing herd (without necessarily producing
competitive animals in the high pressure Genomic market) just use the newest of
the new, and buy them off the top of the list—the same way most AI salesmen
tell you.If you have a constantly updated physical and
nutritional environment for your dairy, you will gain production.

My only question for you then, is “can
you afford to constantly update your facilities, equipment and feeding to
harvest all this accelerated genetic potential” if the only payback is
a 382 pound gain over a five year period??[How much equipment can you buy on the marginal profit from 76 pounds of
milk per cow per year?]

This is the ultimate fact of the
numbers—55% of all semen sold is selected on the above premise, with data promising
up to 2500 pound gains on individual sires—yet we are not harvesting a
fraction of that.

Even if you argue but we were
focusing Net Merit on health traits and longevity, not milk yield, why did
Holsteins only gain one month (on an already short 29 month herdlife) over the
same five years?

Genetic potential is only half
of what it takes.The other
half is matings to produce sound physiques.

Most dairymen are going to use
facilities already built for the remainder of their dairy career.Each facility design was in part based on a
given target production and requires a certain margin over feed and all other
costs to generate the profitability needed to maintain desired household
incomes.If we try to push production
above the level expected from the design, cows will die at earlier ages.Margins fall on the incremental milk
produced.Profitability declines over
time no matter how high the production.

Cows differ in their cost of
production.One of the long
held assumptions of geneticists is that the cow who milks more has lower feed
costs—as if every cow eats the same feed volume.However, this idea never made sense even
when we did stick cows in stanchions and give them all one coffee can of
grain.

As soon as we started “challenge
feeding” cows, some of them went up in yield.Because we did not measure anything else,
we based evaluation on the assumption this was the core of “genetic value”.

Dairy profitability is based on
controlling costs of production, not total yield.This is because profit per unit in commodity
production goes to the “least cost” producer, not the “biggest volume”
producer.

There are few economies in scale in
animal housing, care and milking—only on the equipment side.As a result, the best breeding program
combines multi trait gene selection with physique-based mating to
produce cows capable of competitive, high value per unit production at a
minimal involuntary cost to sustain production.This is the goal of our sire selection
and mating guide.

Mich Livestock Service, Inc ** for
the Best in Bulls ** independent in breeding ideas since 1952

Subscribe by Email

About the Author

Greg Palen grew up on a family dairy modeled on Louis Bromfield's Malabar Farm, which later converted to beef cow calf. After Business School at University of Michigan, Greg became involved with dealer recruitment and distribution for Tri-State Breeders of Wisconsin and then what became Semex USA.

Approved to provide "aAa" (Weeks) Breeding Guide in 1994, a full time activity today. Greg's own Netherhall Farm, a grass based rotation grazing dairy, breeding purebred polled Jerseys designed to meet all body functions on forage energy.